There is no They.

Grinder Dialogues

August 18, 2009

Yes, ladies and gents, it's time for the latest entry in the Grinder Dialogues, the ongoing (theoretically) weekly discussion on matters of technology, society and the future between myself and the dashing SCIENCE! scamps over at Grinding.

If you're just joining us, here are the past dialogues, in order, beginning with a piece by m1k3y, and continuing with my reply.

they have a lot of really valuable things to say, but how do you pitch radical self-reliance and removing yourself from a capitalist society, without pitching it as “us” vs. “them”. Especially in a case like this where the Government was all-too-willing to take on the role of “them”. (Screaming in the back of my head is the voice that used to work in marketing that says “getting arrested was the best thing for their cause” — and looking at the T9 inspired collectives springing up in their wake, I can’t disagree.)

I fervently don’t believe in “them versus us”, it’s useless outdated thinking. Everyone’s “them” is someone else’s “us”. But what I’ve never quite figured out is how to organize without the “other”.

An excellent question, and not an easy one. While the motto here is "There is No They," you're right. An "other" is necessary to organize. People aren't rational creatures, and an image to fight against — or fight for — gives a cause more strength than it might otherwise have.

However, it's important to make the "they" as narrow as possible, and the "Us" vast.

April 29, 2009

There's a lot of different visions of the future out there, and even for those of us who agree (mostly) on where we want to go, some very different ideas about how the hell we actually get there.

Ages ago, I wrote This Time, let's get it right, a response to It's going to get worse, before it gets better, a rant by m1k3y over at Grinding. You should probably take a look at those posts before you go further. Also: Grinding is an excellent place you should check frequently. In the three installments so far, we've written about media, surveillance, rebellion, the role of technology and possible ways forward.

We share many of the same goals: in short, a better future with more freedom for the entire planet. We both share a belief that this is going to be a hell of a time, but a far finer tomorrow is there for the taking if humanity has the courage to grasp it. My criticisms, such as they are, are meant to encourage discussion and help better understand what we're all facing.

There's a lot here, so let's go through it bit by bit. The original rant was, in appropriately scientific manner, laid out in exhibits. Being of more right-brained bent, I'll respond on general themes. Here we go: